Better short-term outcomes of mini-open rotator cuff repair compared to full arthroscopic repair
- Author:
Mehmet AKDEMIR
1
;
Ali İhsan KILIÇ
;
Cengizhan KURT
;
Sercan ÇAPKIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow 2024;27(2):212-218
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: Rotator cuff tears commonly cause shoulder pain and functional impairment, prompting surgical intervention such as miniopen and arthroscopic methods, each with distinct benefits. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of these two approaches. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 165 patients who underwent rotator cuff repair using either arthroscopic-assisted mini-open or full arthroscopic approaches. Patient demographics, tear characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were assessed, with statistical analyses conducted to discern differences between the groups. Results: Among the patients, 74 (53.2%) received the mini-open approach, while 65 (46.8%) underwent arthroscopic repair, with a mean follow-up of 19.91 months. The mini-open group exhibited significantly higher postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores compared to the arthroscopic group (P=0.002). Additionally, the mini-open group demonstrated a more significant improvement in ASES scores from preoperative to postoperative assessments (P=0.001). However, the arthroscopic method had a significantly longer operative time (P<0.001). Complications, including anchor placement issues, frozen shoulder, infection, and re-rupture, occurred in 17.3% of patients overall. Re-rupture rates were 13.5% for mini-open and 6.2% for full arthroscopic repair, with no significant difference between the two methods (P=0.317). Conclusions: Both the mini-open and arthroscopic methods yielded favorable clinical outcomes for rotator cuff tear treatment, but the mini-open group exhibited superior results. Surgeons should consider patient characteristics, tear attributes, and surgical expertise when selecting the appropriate technique. Level of evidence: III.
